From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Vik Reykja <vikreykja(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Optimize referential integrity checks (todo item) |
Date: | 2012-02-13 14:25:00 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ4hw34aNps5RWUODucsvBzbqHOEiFLw-SaqYUs8bMCVw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Vik Reykja <vikreykja(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I decided to take a crack at the todo item created from the following post:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2005-10/msg00458.php
>
> The attached patch makes the desired changes in both code and function
> naming.
>
> It seemed quite easy to do but wasn't marked as easy on the todo, so I'm
> wondering if I've missed something.
It's kind of hard to say whether you've missed something, because you
haven't really explained what problem this is solving; the thread you
linked too isn't very clear about that either. At first blush, it
seems like you've renamed a bunch of stuff without making very much
change to what actually happens. Changing lots of copies of "equal"
to "unchanged" doesn't seem to me to be accomplishing anything.
> All regression tests pass.
You should add some new ones showing how this patch improves the
behavior relative to the previous code. Or if you can't, then you
should provide a complete, self-contained test case that a reviewer
can use to see how your proposed changes improve things.
We're in the middle of a CommitFest right now, so please add this
patch to the next one if you would like it reviewed:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/commitfest_view/open
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-02-13 14:29:29 | Re: index-only quals vs. security_barrier views |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-02-13 14:18:19 | Re: Removing special case OID generation |